Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements

Autor/inn/en	van Moort, Marianne L.; Koornneef, Arnout; van den Broek, Paul W.
Titel	Differentiating Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Validation Processes during Reading: Evidence from Eye Movements
Quelle	In: Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 58 (2021) 1, S.22-41 (20 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (van Moort, Marianne L.) ORCID (van den Broek, Paul W.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0163-853X
DOI	10.1080/0163853X.2020.1727683
Schlagwörter	Reading Processes; Eye Movements; Prior Learning; Reading Comprehension; Connected Discourse; Cognitive Processes; Short Term Memory; Task Analysis; Indo European Languages; Native Language; Reading Rate; Reading Research; Foreign Countries; Netherlands + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Leseprozess; Augenbewegung; Vorkenntnisse; Leseverstehen; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Kurzzeitgedächtnis; Aufgabenanalyse; Indoeuropäisch; Reading readiness; Reading speed; Lesegeschwindigkeit; Leseforschung; Ausland; Niederlande
Abstract	To build a coherent accurate mental representation of a text, readers routinely validate information they read against the preceding text and their background knowledge. It is clear that both sources affect processing, but "when" and "how" they exert their influence remains unclear. To examine the time course and cognitive architecture of text-based and knowledge-based validation processes, we used eye-tracking methodology. Participants read versions of texts that varied systematically in (in)coherence with prior text or background knowledge. Contradictions with respect to prior text and background knowledge both were found to disrupt reading but in different ways: The two types of contradiction led to distinct patterns of processes, and, importantly, these differences were evident already in early processing stages. Moreover, knowledge-based incoherence triggered more pervasive and longer (repair) processes than did text-based incoherence. Finally, processing of text-based and knowledge-based incoherence was not influenced by readers' working memory capacity. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01